That's why I pointed out the examples. (The majority of) People have not been asking for 100% 5e, but specific things.
Also while the DM has the option to ignore the rules and do all the homebrew they love, there is still a social contract behind each playing group. If only the DM has fun with their homebrew usually the next session will be played by them and their teddy bears sitting around the table, while the players will be doing something else.
So please, lets not oversimplify the matter. Larian can do changes and players can decide not to buy. For us who joined the EA we put trust into Larian (and that is our own personal problem not Larian's). I've learned my lesson for myself and I know that Larian isn't a DM I would play with and I probably won't when it comes to future games. I will know it for the next time and that's fine. No drama. What Larian learns from this EA and the release will be up to them.
People can ask for any specific things they want...but Larian doesn't have to oblige...at all. They will do what they believe is best for the game full stop.
And again, a D&D videogame requires a lot more tinkering with the rules than a regular game table because sticking too close to the tabletop rules does not work and will kill the game.
There is literally no over justification, that is just how it is. And Larian will do what they see as necessary.
Either way, the rules will not change drastically anymore at this point...the game is coming out in two weeks.
...and I did acknowledge all of that. I just challenged the notion that the '5e-purist' are the problem people before my post claimed them to be - which is an oversimplification and just throwing dirt on anyone critizing the game's mechanics/rules.
Also - none of the examples I made demanded changes to the mechanics because of the transition of medium used. As we see even Larian managed to implement them (see reactions, action instead of bonus action for sneak) or chose deliberately to ignore feedback (action cost for jump/shove, how throw is balanced). So I don't see any value in that argument used in these cases - its just again throwing everything in the same bin to bolster the claim '5e-purist are unreasonable/have crazy expectations'. I am utterly aware that video games have different limitations, strengths and weaknesses - but using it as an excuse/argument on every topic is just 'questionable' to not use a different word.
